Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/18

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR IT SCHOOL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANOJ P - Opp.Party(s)

M NIZARUDHEEN

16 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.18/15

JUDGMENT DATED : 16.01.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.171/13 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated : 23.09.2014)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIALMEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER

　

1. The District Co-ordinator,

IT @ School, Malappuram,

Malappuram, APPELLANT

Pin – 676505

(By Adv.Sri.M.Nizarudeen)

　

Vs

1. Manoj.P

P.D.Teacher,

Education Department,

G M U P School, Areacode,

Malappuram District – 673639 RESPONDENTS

Souparnika,

Ambalamukku,

Malayamma.P.O

Kozhikode – 643601

　

　

　

　

　

2. R.P.INFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD,

Aysha Tower,

43/ 2614,

K & K 5 Sastha Temple Road,

Kaloor, Kochi – 18

Now functioning at its

Corporate Office,

4^{th Floor, Regent House – 12, RESPONDENTS}

^{Govt Place (East),}

^{Kolkata – 700069}

^{3. R P INFOSYSTEMS PVT LTD}

^{Saras Park Inn,}

^{Ground Floor,}

^{BTR Lane,}

^{Melethampanoor,}

^{Gandhari Amman Coil Road,}

^{Thiruvananthapuram – 695001}

^JUDGMENT

^{SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER}

^{Appellant’s Malappuram Centre was the opposite party in CC.No.171/13 in the CDRF, Malappuram. The first respondent / complainant was a school teacher. He purchased a chirag branded laptop for a consideration of Rs.17,700/- on 14.05.2011 under " the laptop and net book for teachers" scheme implemented by IT @ School, from the Malappuram centre of the appellant. Alleging that the laptop became defective subsequently and the first opposite party failed to cure the defects despite several demands, the complainant sought compensation from the opposite parties. On receipt of notice the first opposite party remained exparte.The appellant filed version refuting the allegations in the complaint. The main contention was that the complainant was not a consumer of the appellant. Evidence was adduced from both sides. The consumer forum negatived the contention of the appellant that there was no consumer relationship between the appellant and the complainant and directed refund of the price of the laptop with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and allowed compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The said order of the consumer forum is being challenged in this appeal.}

^{2. The Additional Government Pleader who appeared for the appellant was heard in detail to decide whether the appeal is to be admitted for detailed hearing or not.}

^{3. It is not disputed that laptop was distributed to the complainant respondent under the scheme formulated by the Department of Education named "laptops and net books for the teacher scheme". The appellant executive director IT @ School, Poojappura was in charge of implementation of the scheme. That the laptop purchased by the complainant under the scheme became defective within the warranty period and was not repaired is not a disputed fact. Even from the allegations in the memorandum of appeal it can be seen that the laptop was distributed as part of the scheme introduced by the Department of Education Government of Kerala. The argument advanced is that the entire consideration was received by the first opposite party the manufacturer of the laptop. The appellant received no part of the consideration. But it is pertinent to notice that it is not monetary consideration alone that is contemplated by the consumer protection act. The appellant took the initiative of distributing laptops with the help of the first opposite party and the confidence reposed by the complainant on the government scheme is one of the factors that obviously persuaded the complainant to purchase the laptop. When the government took the initiative to formulate a scheme it is the obligation of the government to see that it is successfully implemented. The consideration for the laptop was received by the first opposite party as part of scheme implemented by the Government of Kerala and the appellant. Obviously the scheme was formulated by the government with the benefits teachers would derive and make the teacher more qualified to serve the government in mind. This is also a form of consideration government received. The consideration paid by the teacher as price of laptop is as part of scheme and the government cannot shirk the responsibility of distributing a defect free laptop to the customer. So on the admitted facts and allegations the order of the consumer forum against the appellant can not be said to be erroneous. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed inlimine.}

^{In the result, the appeal is dismissed but without costs.}

^{K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIALMEMBER}

 



^{A.RADHA : MEMBER}

 



^{SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER}

 

























^{KERALA STATE}

^{CONSUMER DISPUTES}

^{REDRESSAL COMMISSION}

^{SISUVIHARLANE}

^VAZHUTHACAUD

^{THIRUVANANTHAPURAM}

^{APPEAL NO.18/15}

^JUDGMENT

^{DATED : 16.01.2015}

 

^Be/